User talk:ClariS
SurealD's Champion Concept Hello ClariS, I updated my chamion idea; Ritz. Hope you can take a look at it! Thanks, SurrealD SurrealD 11:31, March 18, 2012 (UTC) Re: Jungle and strategy pages I don't see why not. 05:55, May 20, 2012 (UTC) About the picture Yus, also, if you wish to colour it.... sure, why not? :3 イレリア ♥ アカリ 17:08, June 7, 2012 (UTC) Hello Yes i know "hello" isn't the best title ever but what else might i have said ~_~ Sure i'll add you. mine's is cvthewhiterider. i MIGHT forget so if that happens you add me instead :3 i'm currently diverting myself between NA and EUW servers for my games but majority goes to EUW so you won't see me in NA that often. if i do remember i'll add you under one condition. make it a chocolate cupcake Bloodstrider 09:31, June 12, 2012 (UTC) Blah blah wiggle I'm glad you like it, my life with Teemo is the best thing I could ever ask for. If you want to share it, go for it, that's why it's here. I'm not sure what you mean by me sharing it though, you want to add me somewhere, or? anndd oh well. nothing more to add here than "i enjoyed the cupcake" Bloodstrider 07:55, June 16, 2012 (UTC) mermaid the mythological aquatic creature I'm happy to give you coloring.... ^^v avatar oh well since i'm awake up at 3:30 in the morning thanks to my infernal friend nymph i demand to know what your avatar is ~~ Bloodstrider (talk) 14:36, July 19, 2012 (UTC) okie then~ my apologies if i sounded rude Bloodstrider (talk) 09:27, July 20, 2012 (UTC) tabber Zilla4444 (talk) 15:18, July 28, 2012 (UTC) hi, can u plz tell me how to use the tabber?, thx Zilla4444 (talk) 12:32, July 29, 2012 (UTC) thx for the tabber hee hee hee My no-comment blogs shall go on! mwhahaha!!! Ohey! I miss you too, buddy. [[User:RadarMatt|'RadarMatt']] ([[User talk:RadarMatt|'Talk']]) 18:19, August 6, 2012 (UTC) Ahhh That thing How did you know that I would click your profile page.... or is it some kind of tag that works for everyone? P.S. apparently, doing signature doesn't put my name on it.... Izkael 01:18, August 7, 2012 (UTC) P.P.S Licks wants to figure out why it didn't put my name on it. doing another signature Izkael (talk) 01:27, August 7, 2012 (UTC) here it is. IT WAS HARD TO MAKE! Ninja Homunculus talk 18:02, August 9, 2012 (UTC) Gl It's alright. No problem. I forgive you. ugh, you're too nice not to forgive. =3 I be going back to chat now! Ninja Homunculus talk 08:22, August 10, 2012 (UTC) I was checking the wrong data all along Claris! I didn't realise after too late that I was trying Garen on the public client, not beta. And I only realised when a friend of mine sent me an invite. He's not on my PBE list. Garen's Q is 8 seconds rank 1 on PBE. (As self punishment, I spent my IP on Garen, which was going to be used for Zyra.) --BryghtShadow 18:58, August 11, 2012 (UTC) Promotions all around! 22:02, August 11, 2012 (UTC) I like the new profile pick :D Ibster34 (talk) 19:26, August 15, 2012 (UTC) '"HIIIIIIIIA!!!!! Hidden Sniper!!!!" ' ... Should I be creeped out that is on your page? Hidden Sniper (talk) 09:55, August 28, 2012 (UTC) Bear Tibbers Yeah... Usually when I see that bear I die, it was nice for a change. I normally say change is good but consistency is better, but in this case, that's not true. xD I never knew you could do that with people's names visiting... Really cool. New ability template on Leona I recall you being interested in how it would look for her ultimate. Leona the Radiant Dawn|Check it out. 20:39, September 1, 2012 (UTC) :I think it makes more sense to have it at the top. The cooldown and cost (and arguably, range) are kind of like the "vital statistics" of any ability, and they need to be among the first things you see. 21:56, September 1, 2012 (UTC) hmm What am i doing here...... oh right your avatar made me intriguied to check your page. ( i might be going mad ^ ^ ) Bloodstrider (talk) 03:51, September 8, 2012 (UTC) Penguins I don't like penguins all too much :< Bloodstrider (talk) 04:40, September 8, 2012 (UTC) noob you're a noob Ninja talk 15:32, September 23, 2012 (UTC) I hunger, for more! :p Where have you been bddy, you ain't sayin' much nowadays. :) (Dah' Blob) I do what i blobbing want! 00:14, April 23, 2013 (UTC) Understood Thank you for explaining. ZenLestStehum (talk) 00:49, April 29, 2013 (UTC) Teh Anon Hey ClariS, are you taking exams or something since there have been no update for 2 weeks? :3 (Dah' Blob) I do what i blobbing want! 13:09, April 30, 2013 (UTC) Earlier message. I'm here now if you wanted to talk with me, was sleeping before. :P (Dah' Blob) I do what i blobbing want! 08:35, May 11, 2013 (UTC) :'C Oh well, remember to inform me when you start the revamp. :P (Dah' Blob) I do what i blobbing want! 07:39, May 13, 2013 (UTC) A little revamp for the upcomming revamp. :P Let's have a little chatter whenever you have time, i don't like posting it here. Teh is always spying. <.< (Dah' Blob) I do what i blobbing want! 16:57, May 14, 2013 (UTC) :D!!! ClariS! Where have you been, buddy? can we talk? :) [[User:Dah' Blob|'Dah' Blob ;D']] [[User talk:Dah' Blob|'Talk :3']] 07:54, May 17, 2013 (UTC) Damnit, missed again... Hi, ClariS hey ^^ 19:42, May 18, 2013 (UTC) The Jungling Article Though I'm mildly annoyed that you went ahead to try and cut down on the size of the jungling article after all the work I put into it, I won't get on your case for it (guess I just grew attached to it). What I will do so for, however, is that I don't understand your reasoning for doing so, either. If it's a wiki article (especially about a topic as hard to get into and poorly understood as jungling) why shouldn't it be very in-depth? I don't remember reading about any policy saying long articles are discouraged. Shaw Fujikawa (talk) 14:17, May 21, 2013 (UTC) *If people think the page is long, can they can not just use the Contents table? It's there for a reason, and it's not as if people have to read the entire thing just to find one piece of information about counterjungling or camp timers.Shaw Fujikawa (talk) 18:54, May 25, 2013 (UTC) why aren't you here?! Join chat! it's urgent! URGENT! Ninja talk 03:18, June 23, 2013 (UTC) HIAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ClariS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hiii~ ^^ 21:50, June 26, 2013 (UTC) Reverting Edits Why would you revert the edits I'm making to add information about stacking effects? 01:14, July 13, 2013 (UTC) * I don't know if you'll read this but, I'm reverted them because it's all under 'aura' and it explains it all. Secondly, what you wrote does not deserves to have it's own section as all aura functions the same. At best, it only deserves to have a small brief mention. Thank you for unblocking me. I will indeed make an account and I apprecaite the feedback. 03:09, July 13, 2013 (UTC) Comments Hello, I apologize for the comments I have made. Some were my actual feelings and some were minor trolling. I didn't think it would get punished that bad but now I know. BrienWright (talk) 05:06, July 16, 2013 (UTC) Rammus edit, 10% MR added to ball curl damage Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit in the Rammus wiki. (My edit was adding that defensive ball curl also increases damage returned by 10% of Rammus's magic resist, here: http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Rammus?diff=prev&oldid=1839729) When I read the tooltip and the amount of damage it says ball curl returns, it is always base+ 10% armor + 10% MR. I know the tooltip only says 10% armor, but it seems to be wrong. I wish I could load the game up right now and take a screenshot showing this, but I'm on an old laptop right now. I would like to re-add the edit, but I wanted to talk to you first. If I am wrong, please show me with a screenshot. Thanks. 08:05, August 4, 2013 (UTC) : You're mistaken and I'm not going to take the time to show you a screen shot because I don't have the ability to take a screen shot as well. Ask anyone and they will tell you that there is no +10% MR boost. If you want support, you'll need to prove it yourself, not the other way around. And second, if you were telling the truth and it was changed to that, a lot of people would have noticed a long time ago. It's not that invisible to see an additional scaling. ClariS (talk) 15:20, August 4, 2013 (UTC) Decisive Strike Hello ClariS. I was just here to talk about my previous edit. I wouldn't make such an edit without proper proof, so I have found 2 things. 1) I've just recently tested a custom game with . At level 1 I had 66 Ad and on it showed the damage was 30(+92) Physical Damage. Clearly 140% of 66 is 92.4 damage which would round to 92. If were a 40% ad ratio, then it would state 30(+26) which just isn't so because that would only be 56 physical damage, weaker than a normal autoattack! 2) Not only my test shown this, but even the Garen/Ability Details page shows that it is 1.4 per Attack Damage. So even this own website states the fact has a 140% ad ratio. If this is an upcoming change and I am unaware, then it is truly my fault for not realizing. Though even so, if the live client doesn't show the ratio change, then it shouldn't be changed on the website because it would contain inaccurate data. All I have to say, is that if I were ever to change a ratio, it would be an accurate fix. --Slap 15:26, August 8, 2013 (UTC) P.S. Nice Panty & Stocking picture. :D sorry i reverted your change to trist's range, because it was correct as it was. trist starts with 550, ash starts with 600, cait starts with 650. trist passes up cait's range during mid game. noone can attain 800 auto attack range. : Actually, the different ratio is because I want to list the actual bonus damage that the ability grant you. The 1.4 AD ratio is there because that's the total bonus damage while the 0.4 AD is the actual bonus. Also, I have it this way because critical chance only scales with his base attack damage (not the bonus damage from ability). But now realizing about the new ability detail page, I can shift it back to it's original. ClariS (talk) 00:48, August 15, 2013 (UTC) :: I think I understand now that I've seen , , , and . Though is there a specific reason and wasn't changed or has it not been noticed yet? I know hasn't because his attacks deal less damage than a normal autoattack but excluding and seems strange to me. --Slap 23:49, August 16, 2013 (UTC) Fiora Remake Hi there. I wrote a simple rework for everyone's favorite, French lady. Mind checking it out? Nhan-Fiction (talk) 04:16, August 14, 2013 (UTC) : I'll check it out and give my opinion. ClariS (talk) 00:48, August 15, 2013 (UTC) you seem nice! <3 thanks Lunashy (talk) 21:44, August 19, 2013 (UTC) ... I found it. Your thing. ... 02:59, August 29, 2013 (UTC) : Do you enjoy what ever you found? ClariS (talk) 03:07, August 29, 2013 (UTC) :: It amused me, though there is always room to improve. Suggestions: * fewer OCs, more LoL Wiki people :3 * 500 people = only 9 can revive? 512 works out so that 10 can revive, and it's a power of 2. Maths. ** If you kill someone with souls, do you get their souls? I might have missed it, but this would make sense, because then as one acquires more souls, they would also become more valuable as a target. * Two is too few, generally. In most works, three fits nicely. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerTrio * I don't get enough screen time D: (joke, is fine as is imo) * Proton doesn't plot. Bryght/Neon, maybe. * a few too many blackout scenes/sceneskips * quote insertion would be nifty (e.g. "And nothing of value was lost.") :: 13:36, August 29, 2013 (UTC) : Let's see what I can answer. * (fewer OCs, more LoL Wiki people) Well, I didn't only make this story for the wiki. I'm not going to erase the characters people have suggested. And the only character I made was the main girl. * (500 people = only 9 can revive?) Souls don't transfer. It's part of the twist of how rigged this game is. No one is supposed to win. * Proton doesn't plot. He's a care taker who is maybe passive. Should work on him. He's supposed to be the nice one. * a few too many blackout scenes/sceneskips (Duely noted. trying to improve that on my rework of it) * (quote insertion would be nifty) Never thought about it, but okay. :: ClariS (talk) 15:26, August 29, 2013 (UTC) Spraypaint I coloured your banner white. Forced dark background requires forced light foreground. You like? --BryghtShadow 03:09, August 29, 2013 (UTC) : "coloured" >_> 13:36, August 29, 2013 (UTC) 124 testing your qwe qwe qwe qweqw eqwqwe notifs 02:41, September 3, 2013 (UTC) Long time no see. Greetings ClariS, Started the rewritting? ^^ 04:00, September 5, 2013 (UTC) Hoi "Fan reworks" are to be posted in the custom champion category. I recategorized this one for you, don't forget it next time. 13:13, September 13, 2013 (UTC) vandalism When you ban someone for creating an irrelevant page, please remember to delete that page as well. 01:39, October 6, 2013 (UTC) Template finally found. Hello, ClariS You said you had some template for creating a custom champion "what is this? Someone actually found my template I made for all those new people who desire to make a custom champion. I am shocked." 3 days ago by ClariS my question to you is: where? I can't find it. So... can you give me a link or something? Sincerely, Shadowstriker314 ... But you already know my name, as it is written in the introduction :D (How did you do that?!) EDIT: Oh... I already found it. Here. Sorry to waste your time... You called? Hey, I'm here, just doing things and private messages in chat are really bad at notifying me. What's up? 02:05, October 17, 2013 (UTC) Hi there. I think your current avatar is really pretty. Also, I was wondering if you could please review the newer Kiya, the Fervor of the Sands . Another custom champ should hopefully be ready soon after that. Nhan-Fiction (talk) 01:03, November 25, 2013 (UTC) Hi there, i'm new here at the wiki and i like to contribute to make this a great source of information about league. yesterday u have send me the following message: { Please do not change all the percentage scaling ratios. We have it written differently to visually differ from flat scaling ratios, and there are a few champion these differences are needed (i.e. http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Warwick Warwick). I thank you for wanting to improve the wiki, but if you notice a large scale theme on the wiki, before completely changing it, at least ask a mod or go into the chat room and ask why it's like a certain design before changing it. I hope you have a nice day and I look forward to see more helpful contributions in the future. ClariS (talk) 21:08, November 24, 2013 (UTC) } After reading this i didn't get the difference between my version (ex:1% AP) and (ex:1% per 100 AP). Isn't this suppose to give the same value in the end? If so, i think my version is more easy to understand at start. If not, could u explain to me how the math is done here? :P Thanks for the attention, Elmatos (talk) 18:18, November 25, 2013 (UTC) Avarice Blade Hey, it looks like we're gonna need some mod/admin assistance w/ these Avarice Blade edits...thanks. Knives182 (talk) 23:40, December 4, 2013 (UTC) Knives182 nullifying my work on G/10 items His actions are making me angry, frustrated and agitated. He removes work, details and moves them to sections that is used for misc stuff while the info could easily carry its weight at under its own header. He is not helping not improving, he is vandalizing. BlackSmith (talk) 14:37, December 7, 2013 (UTC) : The sections had best and worst scenario so that no matter what the skill of level of the player, they get a idea where their G/10 will land and to see how well it evaluates towards other G/10 items. OFC they need to have the high and lows as how otherwise could you compare them, same reason for quantifying the GE's. Players sell G/10 items seldom to get cash, inv space, lane phase is over or to get something more worth while. The present G/10 items do not really develop to anything too good or in case of AB its dragging until 300 g. The reverted/original articles have math errors and are difficulty to unravel. I know every ranked support and ADC person is interested about the numbers as duo Targon gives remarkable cash benefit. It is ironic to say my information is theoretical as my numbers come from solid grounds and they show what is the worst scenario, no theories there. Separate sections handling the sweet/critical/main parts of any article would be reasonable instead of scattering the information cross the article, method well used in wikipedia and other wikis. I fail to see how cramming everything to notes section makes the article well structured. I started adding the information to the GE sections because to me they are waste of space, thus trying to make them give me something concrete also. I would like to hear what are your suggestions for working for middle ground as a senior editor because this kind of revert war only makes people angry and does not take the wiki forward. BlackSmith (talk) 03:25, December 8, 2013 (UTC) :: The lowest skill level for Relic Shield would be not using the item every 60 seconds, wasting charge time. Killing caster minions instead of readily available melee minions is, as ClariS already pointed out, more like being mediocre on purpose. :: If there are any math errors on the pages, by all means point them out. :: We don't want to clutter articles with a million sections covering every trivial situation possible. Quantity has to be balanced w/ brevity. The corner cases & redundant analyses you're arguing for simply aren't worth the space on the page. :: Honestly man, just move on. You made some changes to a few articles & they didn't fly. It's not the end of the world. Part of editing a wiki is adhering to the consensus, which in this case is against you. If you're going to develop pet pages & get upset when they don't go your way, this isn't for you. Knives182 (talk) 04:54, December 8, 2013 (UTC) Aspects that were noted. Also you are not wasting anything if you are not killing something every 60 secs. If you are walking around with full charges, that is wasting. With Targon you can even take a piss break and not loose a dime. Something that other G/10 items can't offer. I have pointed the math errors out. You keep reverting them. Million sections? Every trivial situation? Cut the bullshit and stick with the facts. One section dealing with one major aspect of a item. In most cases it has collected the random pieces from strategy, notes and cost for one neat package that answers the questions asked in comments and rationalizes the item in numbers that can be understood. I do see redundancy but its in the CA section that stammers the item stats over and over again. There are lot of stuff in the pages but honestly, not much of content. You could point out where the redundancy is as without groundings/examples just makes you a ...liar. This really got my attention as I have been fighting the war against redundancy/stammering over two dozen wikis over the time of 80+k edits. Also I consider myself quite good with iteration magic. Honestly man, you just don't like me editing your articles. Consensus? Go read the articles and make note how many of the comments are about contemplating how much gold it gives. With my contributions you could compare the gold items. Not anymore after reverts. That's your (two) 'consensus' against my one plus over two dozen other taken only from AB page already. Get down your high horse. Btw, I love the way first use as a grounding point that games don't last over 30 mins and then WHAM its ok to include 'theoretical' information about games lasting over 35 mins. It does not make you look hypocrite at all. :-D BlackSmith (talk) 13:23, December 8, 2013 (UTC) Your mod right request In order for me to give it the stamp of approval we need your confirmation that you want the rights. 20:17, December 21, 2013 (UTC) Re: Nonlinear Scaling Hello ClariS! Apologies for any confusion I may have caused. I had seen the format used on 's article, and extended it to other champions with nonlinear scalings. I agree in hindsight that the formula is unclear. Has there been discussion on this, though? As much as the now reverted formula was confusing, it had the advantage of being a lot more concise (as opposed to the current format's long string of numbers), and better indicated when the scaling on a champion's passive spiked. Could there not be a way to give the nonlinear scaling formula and add clarification in the description to explain how it works (and possibly add the values at levels 1 and 18)? Obviously, I'm not going to fiddle with anything, but have you considered updating the nonlinear scaling formula for champions this way? --Willbachbakal (talk) 07:20, December 30, 2013 (UTC) Definitely! I made a forum thread on this, which I invite you to discuss on. Here's the link. Happy new year! --Willbachbakal (talk) 21:44, December 31, 2013 (UTC) Re: % Movement Speed Okay, now this I understand much less. Movement speed does actually have a gold value, as given by the article, and percentage movespeed can be translated to flat movespeed using a fixed base of 325, which is the minimum base movement speed any champion can have. Effectively, 1% movespeed can be translated to a minimum of 3.25 movespeed, giving a minimum value of 42.25g per 1% movement speed. Why is this not acceptable in the cost analysis value if it can be calculated? --Willbachbakal (talk) 02:20, January 2, 2014 (UTC) You're missing the point in various different ways: first off, you can stack movement speed, specifically through percent movespeed. The limitation on boots is irrelevant to this. Similarly, effectiveness is irrelevant as well: might not get anything out of a , but that doesn't mean we have to adjust the item's value to match. The third and fourth points surprise me, because you're thinking completely the wrong way: percentage movespeed, unlike flat movespeed, is used solely to explain how an item is gold efficient (e.g. "The movement speed stat must have a value of Xg for Y to be gold efficient"). Thus, to see if it's gold efficient in all cases, you need to imagine a worst case scenario: suppose you have a build where the percentage movespeed is at its least efficient, meaning you're building percent movespeed on a 325 movement speed champion with no other form of mobility enhancement. From then, it's easy to calculate how much flat movespeed each point of percent movespeed translates to, and if it works, then no matter who builds this item, it will always be gold efficient. It's pretty much proof-based math: if you can prove that it works for the worst case, you can prove that it works for all cases. For that matter, the current gold efficiency descriptions are misleading. Almost every item that gives percent movement speed is listed as gold inefficient because the movement speed is not counted. This doesn't give an accurate representation of the item's gold efficiency, and I feel it's particularly silly not to accept that a stat makes an item gold efficient regardless of how the stat scales. --Willbachbakal (talk) 03:00, January 2, 2014 (UTC) #You're confusing effectiveness with efficiency. An item doesn't have to be effective to be gold efficient. Listing the item's gold efficiency does not necessarily indicate how effective it is. I didn't list how effective the item is (and I don't care how effective it is), I just proved that it's efficient no matter the champion's movement speed. #"Consider that using the slowest champion movement speed as a basis is only accurate for that champion:" no it's not. I just proved to you that the percentage movement speed stat is always gold efficient, regardless of which champion has it. I proved this by assuming the worst case possible, and extrapolating from there. Don't be scared by that. I may have made an assumption, but one that will guarantee that the statement "this item is gold efficient" is always true. It is fact. I might as well prove to you that any champion with any base movement speed and any combination of bonus movespeed from masteries, runes or items will find the percent movespeed stat gold efficient, but I don't have to, because every single one of those situations makes percent movespeed as valuable or more valuable than in the situation I calculated. Every possible scenario is contained within my assumption, since my assumption is designed to be all-encompassing. Yes, the movement speed may be more valuable depending on items, but its value will always be higher, ergo if it's gold efficient now it'll still be gold efficient later. #I cannot reiterate enough that the gold efficiency I listed is valid regardless of what you choose to buy. The value of the movespeed listed isn't given to indicate what its absolute value is (that's impossible, I agree), just to say whether or not an item is gold efficient. Again, your way of approaching this makes no sense. # lists its base health regen from its passive as part of its gold value, and gives the amount of health required (as well as the minimum level, which makes its calculation principle identical to that of my movespeed) to be gold efficient. Atma's is actually even more complicated than my formula, since its AD bonus doesn't always make it efficient, whereas percent movespeed will always be gold efficient. #To repeat myself again, I am not trying to set the gold value for percent movespeed. I know this is not possible, and I'm not saying percent movespeed has a constant value. I am simply taking its least possible value (which can be easily calculated) to prove that, regardless of any additional movespeed, the item is gold efficient. Bonuses from items are irrelevant to this, because they all improve the gold value (or, in the case of more bonus movespeed, leave it unchanged). #By setting the gold value at the lowest stat, I'm indicating the item is always gold efficient. The current descriptions do not give any value at all for percent movespeed, which means they're forcing the player to make the same calculation I did to prove that the item is gold efficient in all situations. Right now the pages are phrased in a way that would suggest the items are gold inefficient, which is misleading and blatantly untrue. If I say that the item is gold efficient, there is no case you can point out that would make the item gold inefficient (save for the / kind of situation). You really need to look at what I'm presenting. Right now, you're completely ignoring my rationale and following yours, despite it making no sense. What I'm trying to say is that I agree with you that percent movespeed has no set value, but that doesn't matter because we're not establishing its value for all situations, we're just gauging its gold efficiency. That is what's important here. You need to put your vendetta aside: at best, it's clouding your judgment, and at worst it's causing you to maintain disinformation on the wiki out of personal bias. --Willbachbakal (talk) 07:53, January 2, 2014 (UTC) That's the thing, though: regardless of a champion's movement speed, the percent movespeed stat will be gold efficient. Item's don't exist in a vacuum, either. So, like I said, I agree that percent movespeed doesn't have a fixed value (and I'm not giving it one. I'm giving its value at 325 movespeed, which is a huge difference and is actually possible to calculate). However, that does not mean percent movespeed and flat movespeed are completely different stats, just as it would be ridiculous to say that percent AP or percent health-to-HP regen would be different to flat AP and health regeneration respectively. If you purchase a percent movespeed item, you're still going to end up with a certain amount of movement speed in the end. If you want to get fancy, the exact formula for calculating (not setting) the gold value of percent movespeed is (flat movespeed)*0.13 gold per point of percent movespeed. Since every champion has at least 325 flat movement speed, this translates to 42.25 + (base movespeed over 325 + bonus flat movespeed)*0.13 gold per point of percent movespeed. Since the value in parentheses is always greater than or equal to 0, the mentioned items will always be gold efficient, regardless of which champion you're basing this on. I'm not saying 1% movespeed is worth 42.25 gold, I'm just saying that's its minimum value (i.e. value at 325 flat movespeed, which is a set value), and thus that it'll always be worth at least that much. With % movespeed, you will always be factoring in 325 movement speed no matter what. The value of the increase to that 325 movement speed is implicit in the item's gold value, which is why it needs to be acknowledged. While I'd certainly be interested in collaborating with you for establishing % gold efficiency, this needs to be solved first. I'm not particularly dissatisfied with the way gold efficiency is listed, save for this particular case: right now, the items are listed as gold inefficient when it is mathematically impossible for them to be so: that's why the current version is misleading, and that's why I want to change it. As a theorycrafter, I might be interested in seeing the fixed gold value of an item, but as a player I only care about one thing: is this item worth my gold? If it is, I'll take it (and it doesn't matter if I'm building a on ). It it's not, I'd rather pick something that'll at least allow me to break even. One look at the gold efficiency summary of those items tells me they're inefficient, particularly with the statement "The movement speed stat must have a value of at least Xg for Y to be gold efficient": its value is always going to be greater than that. It's always gold efficient! I'm being misinformed! By contrast, by saying "The movespeed stat has X gold value at 325 movespeed", I'm making a statement that is true regardless of the situation. Your champion doesn't have 325 movespeed? That's fine, just add the extra movespeed on top and the item becomes even more valuable, and still gold efficient. What I'm trying to indicate is not only true, but also more complete than the current statement. It is better than the current version in every way. I'd also like to stress that the statement "the movespeed stat has a X gold value at 325 movespeed" is a fact. The formula for calculating the value of percent movespeed can be simplified to one parameter: flat movement speed. Since I have set the parameter to 325 and given that value, it is a true statement. Moreover, 1% movement speed will give at least 3.25 flat movespeed, so the statement "This item is gold efficient" (which is the big point here), will always be true. By contrast, the statement "the movespeed stat must have a value of at least X for Y to be gold efficient" may indicate that the item is gold efficient, but is phrased in such a way that it suggests a possibility that it may be gold inefficient in some cases, which is false. You haven't done a poor job of explaining the way or have their passives calculated. You have, however, done a spectacularly poor job of understanding what I'm trying to convey. I'm not setting the gold value of percent movement speed as an absolute. Its gold value can be set for a specific amount of flat movement speed, and setting it as the lowest value proves that it is gold efficient in all cases. Again, I'm not giving a universal value to percent movement speed, I'm just setting a lower bound to its value and proving that it more than satisfies the item's gold efficiency requirement. I think this argument is based on a misunderstanding: you think I'm trying to give 1% movement speed a fixed gold value. I'm not. I recognize that this is not possible, and am not trying to equate 1% movement speed to 3.25 flat movespeed. I am, however, trying to show you that 1% movement speed equates to at least 3.25 flat movement speed. You're not paying attention at all to the difference here. 1% movement speed >= 3.25 movement speed is the true statement here, and it's the statement I've been proving to you is true. From then, it follows naturally that gold value(1% movement speed) >= gold value(3.25 movement speed) which is what I want to put on the mainspace and what you don't want to have for some reason. Tell me, is this statement wrong? If it's not, we might as well rectify that on the relevant items and get this over with. --Willbachbakal (talk) 12:09, January 4, 2014 (UTC) Welcome back. I'd rather not leave this hanging in the air. --Willbachbakal (talk) 22:46, January 19, 2014 (UTC) Okay, first off, what you're trying to say about percent movespeed scaling differently is irrelevant. Champions like , , , and can all instantly cause their AD to vary with equipped, and champions like , , and all have their AP gains modified by . You also misunderstood me: percentage movespeed may not scale the same way as flat movement speed (something I've never asserted anyway), but both translate into an increase in the champion's movement rate. There is a formula I produced which gives the precise gold value of percent movespeed, a formula you have consistently ignored, but that too is not what I'm trying to prove. More to the point, you are yet again missing the issue here: I don't care how percentage movespeed scales. The only thing I care about is that its value at 325 movespeed, the lowest for any champion, makes every item with percent movespeed gold efficient. You might as well have 19.5 flat movement speed indicated on 's list of stats, for example, because that's what it's guaranteed to give for any champion. You are ignoring this, and I think you're doing so deliberately. What is your reason for ignoring the minimum gold value of percentage movement speed? --Willbachbakal (talk) 08:32, January 21, 2014 (UTC) The reason this is not an issue is, I repeat again, because there is no need to look any further. The only concern when calculating gold efficiency is to know if the item is gold efficient. Again, every percent movespeed item is gold efficient, because the minimum gold value of the stat is gold efficient. I don't need a range (particularly as there is no upper bound) because I only care about the value at 325 movement speed. It doesn't matter how percent movespeed scales in gold value, nor does it matter if champions have more than 325 movespeed. What matters is that % movement speed items are always gold efficient. The statements you have maintained on the mainspace articles are thus misleading. You have, again, missed the important point of what I've been proving to you over these replies: , and are always gold efficient. If you really want to challenge me on how percent movement speed scales, I could always indicate the flat movement speed required for each item to be gold efficient, which will always be under 325. --Willbachbakal (talk) 10:26, January 21, 2014 (UTC) I know exactly what you're trying to prove, but the problem is that the reasoning you are using is wrong: the percentage of the movement speed you gain may change the rate at which you move, but you will always have a base added amount of movement speed. I do not care if the 3.25 movement speed gained from 1% movespeed scales differently, I only care that I will always have a minimum of 3.25 movement speed. Scaling from abilities or items is irrelevant. You are, once again, ignoring my point by focusing on the scaling and not the minimum amount. I have been fully agreeing with you this whole time that percent movespeed doesn't scale the same way as flat movement speed, but both translate into a movement speed increase. You are, yet again, ignoring my point. --Willbachbakal (talk) 19:37, January 21, 2014 (UTC) If an item were to offer multiplicative % movement speed scaling, I'd just calculate the bonus it'd give for 325 movement speed and call it a day, just as I'm doing right now. There is no conditional for 1% movement speed to contribute 3.25 flat movespeed: this is always true. At the risk of flogging a dead horse, any items or abilities you may have that increase your movement speed are irrelevant, as 1% extra movement speed will invariably be worth at least 3.25 movement speed. You are yet again stalling, for reasons I do not know. Not to put upon you an ultimatum, but I'm going to have to ask you to find a situation in which 1% movement speed is worth less than 42.25g (the value of 3.25 flat movement speed). If you can't, then there is no reason for us to have this argument, as it makes the items we're discussing gold efficient. Just because you were opposed to this change at the time when you got your math wrong doesn't mean you have to continue opposing yourself to this out of personal attachment. --Willbachbakal (talk) 09:08, January 22, 2014 (UTC) Thank you for finally acknowledging my point. I am overruling you and updating the articles. If you have any objection, you may refer to an admin. --Willbachbakal (talk) 20:37, January 22, 2014 (UTC) I have created a forum thread for this discussion, since it seems to have gotten quite heated: Forum:Percent_movement_speed. Please paraphrase the main points of your opinions, then we can continue the discussion further. 22:48, January 23, 2014 (UTC) : TL;DR ??? 17:30, January 25, 2014 (UTC) Annie's Passive Level Scaling hey why did you revert my edit on annie? i put the timing in there b/c people should know it. please leave a response on my talk page Killerkoyd (talk) 05:52, January 19, 2014 (UTC) ---- thanks for the clarification Killerkoyd (talk) 21:23, January 19, 2014 (UTC) mutiple things for all your recent FIora edits: blade waltz: attack speed animation and blade waltz are synced {affects each of the 5 strikes channel time} the faster she can attack blade waltz cast each strikes quicker, this also narrows the window in which she can be attacked. the delay still exsits for selecting new targets with in her range per strike befor selecting new targets. Riposte: Can perry the first attack of blade waltz and all on-hit abilites/items still apply with that strike, but this still counts as a hit all subsequent strikes deal 25% damage. {tested in mutiple mirror matches and replays} Blade waltz: lifesteal dose not replenish health immediatly, all lifesteal gained is added to your health total at the end of the last strike of the animation just befor landing: {cross checked a few replays for this, as ive died on the 3/4th hit via ignite; where i had more then enough ad lifesteal and armour pen to out recover the damage delt even with -50% lifesteal/regen from ignite} Riposte: perries physical damage based abilties and auto attacks that trigger on-hit abiltes; perry blocks all physical damage assciated with it {empowered/ agumented/ modified attack damage incuded. However Perry dose not stop any on-hit affects assciated with it. {meaning bork can still hit 4% current health, hydra splashes, } Hellswarm (talk) 20:25, February 4, 2014 (UTC) HellswarmHellswarm (talk) 20:25, February 4, 2014 (UTC)